Hands-on: YouTube Capture app one-ups Apple’s video sharing options

App can upload to YouTube, Google+, Facebook, and Twitter all from one place.

As part of its apparent onslaught of pre-holiday app releases, Google released a brand new app for iOS users aimed at one-upping Apple's own video sharing capabilities on the iPhone. Called YouTube Capture (or, on the iOS home screen, just "Capture"), the free app allows you to either record movies right from within the app or import them from your device's Camera roll. From there, you can perform basic edits on your clips and then upload them to YouTube, Google+, Facebook, or Twitter, thereby expanding the options beyond the single option Apple offers.

The app is pretty simple, but that's also its main strength.

The app is very simple and straightforward—there's not a lot to discover outside its main function of recording videos. YouTube Capture does require you to log in to use the app, but then it's automatically associated with your YouTube account and possibly your Google+ account if you have one. The app gives you the option to link it with your Twitter and Facebook accounts as well, so you always have the option of uploading to one (or several) of those services at once.

Compared to Apple's single option for video uploading—YouTube—this is a great thing to have. Sure, you can upload videos individually to services like Twitter and Facebook via their own apps, but it's much more convenient to have this capability from a single app. This feature alone is probably enough to make people want to use it—everything else is just extra to the general audience.

You can perform basic edits within this app, like trimming your clip or adding automatic color correction.

Still, there are a number of nice-to-haves, such as the ability to apply automatic color-correction and stabilization to your film. YouTube Capture also lets you trim the length of your video with a handy drag-and-drop interface, and you can set the privacy level of your videos from within the app before uploading them to YouTube or Google+. (It seems the app can post to Facebook, but it doesn't give you options for whether you want the video to be friends-only or public.) You can also set a "soundtrack" to your video, though it appears to limit you to a number of presets offered by YouTube.

The app lets you change your privacy settings for videos uploaded to YouTube or Google Plus, but not Facebook.

For those who get into creating movies on their mobile devices, YouTube Capture isn't quite what you can get from something like Apple's iMovie for iOS, which offers many more options when it comes to spicing up your movie. Then again, the two apps are not really comparable—iMovie costs money, for one, while YouTube Capture is free—and their audiences are slightly different. YouTube Capture is going after the most basic mobile video creator who might not care about putting together an edited film—someone who just wants to throw some funny cat videos on as many popular sites as possible.

In that case, it's hard not to recommend YouTube Capture, at least when compared against Apple's default offerings. It's a smart, simple little app that appears to work well (from our limited testing so far). And don't worry Android fans, old Uncle Google hasn't forgotten about you—according to the YouTube blog, the company is "working to bring this to Android in the future," though there's no specific date as of yet.

Is the editor the "killer" feature of this app? Can you not just send video to YouTube or Facebook, etc. from the video/camera app already?

I'm pretty ignorant about ios regarding video since I only really use it on an iPad which isn't the most convenient video camera. On my sgs2 I just take pics/video and then send to whatever service I have installed via the gallery/camera app.

An editor would be nice since on my phone that's a separate app (and a separate step I usually ignore)

Questions - a) It says upload at 720p - but does it capture and store locally 1080p like the 4S and 5 are capable of or does it force 720p even on the locally stored file?b) can the filters be applied to local files or are they only applied to files that are uploaded to YouTube - basically the filters only being available then for the truncated 720p files and having to redownload the filtered files off of YouTube (can you even do that?)

Some of the comments and the headline seem to pitch this as an apple failing. I don't get why. Would it be better if apple provided no video sharing in the first place? Or would it better if apples walled garden didn't allow this to flourish in the first place? I'm missing where the let down is. Is apple somehow supposed to simultaneously provide this vast ecosystem of apps and at the same time one-up every one of them into immediate obsolescence? It's a great phone; google wrote a great app. Done deal.

Please don't start doing slashdot style headlines ARS; there was a reason I began reading here instead of there.

It's Ars not ARS - ARS is a plumbing company The title says it one-ups Apple's video SHARING options. Sure both can upload to YouTube, but the new app has features that stabilize, color correct and allow you to add a soundtrack, too.The worst interpretation is that this follows a recent trend in Google apps (Maps, Chrome, YouTube) to provide better functionality than the core, default apps found on iOS devices. Don't get your panties in a bunch (;

I'd have to agree with BullBearMS - the headlines from Jacqui have been nothing more than linkbait recently. It's working, comments on articles are up (no doubt with a fair number that are focusing on the nature of the headlines).

Sadly I'm visting Ars less now. If trolling in the Apple-Google war is what you feel you need to do to get hits... fine. But I can't say I'll keep reading.

How does this not "one-up" apples own offerings? It seems quite obvious that this tool is aimed to be super easy to use and make it possible for people to get their videos out on multiple platforms with as little effort as possible...

Questions - a) It says upload at 720p - but does it capture and store locally 1080p like the 4S and 5 are capable of or does it force 720p even on the locally stored file?b) can the filters be applied to local files or are they only applied to files that are uploaded to YouTube - basically the filters only being available then for the truncated 720p files and having to redownload the filtered files off of YouTube (can you even do that?)

I opened a video shot with Capture and Quicktime says it is H.264, 1920 x 1080.

After trying the different filters I see that the unedited video is added to the camera roll. So it looks like the filters and edits are only available to the uploaded version.

Questions - a) It says upload at 720p - but does it capture and store locally 1080p like the 4S and 5 are capable of or does it force 720p even on the locally stored file?b) can the filters be applied to local files or are they only applied to files that are uploaded to YouTube - basically the filters only being available then for the truncated 720p files and having to redownload the filtered files off of YouTube (can you even do that?)

I opened a video shot with Capture and Quicktime says it is H.264, 1920 x 1080.

After trying the different filters I see that the unedited video is added to the camera roll. So it looks like the filters and edits are only available to the uploaded version.

These filters, etc. are handled from youtube - if you ever use the youtube video manager you will see these same options available.

Questions - a) It says upload at 720p - but does it capture and store locally 1080p like the 4S and 5 are capable of or does it force 720p even on the locally stored file?b) can the filters be applied to local files or are they only applied to files that are uploaded to YouTube - basically the filters only being available then for the truncated 720p files and having to redownload the filtered files off of YouTube (can you even do that?)

I opened a video shot with Capture and Quicktime says it is H.264, 1920 x 1080.

After trying the different filters I see that the unedited video is added to the camera roll. So it looks like the filters and edits are only available to the uploaded version.

These filters, etc. are handled from youtube - if you ever use the youtube video manager you will see these same options available.

That's a bummer - this essentially means you only get the filters on downgraded video :-/ It's too bad, the stabilization is really quite impressive. Completely eliminates any benefit for me.

I'm repeatedly forced to remind people: Apple makes $0 from their own free apps. Appel makes $30% of 3rd party apps. Apple provides the minimum functionality necessary to develop beneath it a full suite of developer APIs that permit 3rd party applications to be pleantiful and well coded yet secure and compliant. Apple provides a "model" of what apps can do, and underneath provides even more options, encouraging 3rd party development. Apple is not in the business of providing the best possible apps, they only do what is required to be comopetitive, and to show off their UI and APIs, but they DON'T want to be the best, unless it;s one of their own premium apps, and even then they're careful not to step on the toes of notable and reputable partners.

Of course this is better than apple's app, that was by Apple's design.

Google Maps and now this... Apple might have it's "walled garden" but the kids across the street sure are hitting a lot of balls into the yard.

That's what people don;t get. initially the walled garden was about a few things: 1) pretty much #1 was that carriers did NOT like apps they didn;t have a say in, so they built in numerous polices in apple's contract with them making certain types of aps simply verbotten, anything that would a) hurt the carrier's revenue model or b) impact the carrier network or c) increase support calls to the carrier about the device. (apple handled C) by running their own iPhone dedicated callcenter for AT&T here in the states staffed by appel not at7t employees). 2) Ensuring user consistancy of experience, Apple did not want core apps and function overridden until people were used to the experience. 3) laws, lots of them, same that apply to brick and mortar stores, some kinds of apps are simply illegal, and other kinds have local tax/regulation issues to deal with, so instead of getting involved, apple just banned them outright (this includes Porn, for which there are over 1700 local laws in the USA apple has to be compliant with in order to distribute pron on iOS here). 4) quality, nuff said. 5) limited APIs, some things just took time to become open to 3rd parties in a secure way, more so because iOS wasnot designed from day 1 to support apps at all, other than those apple released for it internally. 6) stolen IP.

Of the original rules, the only "do not copy default function" one that remains is the dialer, and evebn that has parallels. email, camera, GPS, all are open and available. Much of the early issues were simply apple establishing itself, and also apple coming to terms with carriers. As that over time faded, and iOS became more powerful, and APIs opened up, walls preventing certain types of apps fell. Each release made it more and more open. At this point, the only rules really left are: don't break carrier policies (which Google play is also subject to), write good clean code avoiding forbidden APIs (a rule google SHOULD apply), don't break local laws (stealing IP, and outright illegal apps, something google does all the time via takedown notices), and have a novel function or utility (no more fart apps, no aggregators), and stay in your sandbox (another rule google should enforce). That's about it. Basically, the garden wall is more of a pen to keep the kids inside safe, but at the same time be welcoming to others.

There was also a lot of growing pains, apps getting rejected for vague reasons. Happened a lot that first year, several times the year after, but when's the last time you saw an article about an app being rejected on unfair grounds by apple? I don't think I've seen a single article in over a year, maybe longer. It's a pretty welcoming environment so long as you play by rules almost entirely put in place by legal authorities, governments, or carriers and not apple itself, other than the "good code" rules which I'm very happy they stick to.

I'm repeatedly forced to remind people: Apple makes $0 from their own free apps. Appel makes $30% of 3rd party apps. Apple provides the minimum functionality necessary to develop beneath it a full suite of developer APIs that permit 3rd party applications to be pleantiful and well coded yet secure and compliant. Apple provides a "model" of what apps can do, and underneath provides even more options, encouraging 3rd party development. Apple is not in the business of providing the best possible apps, they only do what is required to be comopetitive, and to show off their UI and APIs, but they DON'T want to be the best, unless it;s one of their own premium apps, and even then they're careful not to step on the toes of notable and reputable partners.

Of course this is better than apple's app, that was by Apple's design.

And Apple make zero dollars from YouTube Capture... But google makes money off of every video view that happens on their site when ads are displayed. Not to mention being linked to your google account google in turn knows more about the people using the iphone then they did before this app was released.

I'm repeatedly forced to remind people: Apple makes $0 from their own free apps. Appel makes $30% of 3rd party apps. Apple provides the minimum functionality necessary to develop beneath it a full suite of developer APIs that permit 3rd party applications to be pleantiful and well coded yet secure and compliant. Apple provides a "model" of what apps can do, and underneath provides even more options, encouraging 3rd party development. Apple is not in the business of providing the best possible apps, they only do what is required to be comopetitive, and to show off their UI and APIs, but they DON'T want to be the best, unless it;s one of their own premium apps, and even then they're careful not to step on the toes of notable and reputable partners.

Of course this is better than apple's app, that was by Apple's design.

That would be all well and good if Apple allowed users to assign the default app for each action.

I can't designate Google Maps as my default maps app. I can't assign Google Chrome as my default web browser. That makes a world of difference because the majority of users will use the default app because it's more convenient that jumping through hoops to use a different app.

In the case of Google Chrome (and other iOS browsers from the App Store), Apple doesn't permit them to compete on even ground because they locked down the speedier Javascript engine (and maybe other features) to be exclusive to Safari. Not sure if these restrictions affect other types of apps.

If Apple is creating an ecosystem where 3rd party apps can compete on even ground, then why do these restrictions exist for defaults and features?

I'm repeatedly forced to remind people: Apple makes $0 from their own free apps. Appel makes $30% of 3rd party apps. Apple provides the minimum functionality necessary to develop beneath it a full suite of developer APIs that permit 3rd party applications to be pleantiful and well coded yet secure and compliant. Apple provides a "model" of what apps can do, and underneath provides even more options, encouraging 3rd party development. Apple is not in the business of providing the best possible apps, they only do what is required to be comopetitive, and to show off their UI and APIs, but they DON'T want to be the best, unless it;s one of their own premium apps, and even then they're careful not to step on the toes of notable and reputable partners.

Of course this is better than apple's app, that was by Apple's design.

It is 2014 & Apple has recently made it's worldclass video editing app aka iMovie, absolutely FREE for all of its users! Now who the heck will ever use Google's shit called Youtube Capture? FUC* You Google!!!